God Bless you, Dan. I could kiss you right now -THREAD-

1.31.21 60 Minutes on CBS (shredding China, https://t.co/GO0A4skh92, 23&Me, Gov. Inslee (WA) and more - Watch it.. Not the FULL truth but enough to tell some people "Told ya."

Then Dan posts this vid👇

51 seconds long.
Depending on which numbers you go by...
Or MIL⌚️

🤔Graham is no longer head J Committee. Grassley is.
Did this make sense BEFORE?
Does it NOW?
On the East Coast.. It was already FREEDOM DAY when Dan posted.
Then we got this little dandy.
https://t.co/1taP5mek1I
Now, we've seen this one before.. but something was bugging me, so I pulled up the original and focused on the change.
https://t.co/1taP5mek1I
3 seconds were shaved off.
An interesting 3 seconds, since S3v3nt33n said they wouldn't use THIS phrase until after arrests.
That also puts extra emphasis on the "36."
Additional points brought up by anons..

-Silver

-Directive 51

- 👇
https://t.co/oftwWYuhzP
https://t.co/EU7FkzMFDC

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?